DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-6 are pending.
Claims 1-6 have been examined.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of copending Application No. 19553708 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 5 of 19553708 teaches all of the elements of claims 1-6. In particular, the reinforcement member having a separate strip shape and a rod shape may be considered the first and second reinforcement portions with the strip shaped portion being sewn to the sewn portion/divider which divides the pocket opening.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (JP 2016155541) (“Abe”) in view of JP 60-006356 (“JP ‘356”). Abe teaches a seat trim, comprising: a trim main body (fig. 1: 5) that configures a surface portion of a seatback that supports a back of a seated occupant; a pocket forming member (fig. 1:7) that forms a pocket at a back frace side of the trim main body between the pocket forming member and the trim main body, configuring a bag-shaped section with an edge portion at an opening side of the pocket and formed in a bag shape along a seat width direction; a first reinforcement portion that reinforces the bag-shaped section (fig. 4: 9) and is provided at an interior of the bag-shaped section respectively at a seat width direction; and a second reinforcement portion (fig. 4: 10) that reinforces the bag-shaped section and is provided at the interior of the bag-shaped section
Abe does not teach a seat width direction intermediate portion of the bag-shaped section joined to the trim main body such that the bag-shaped section is divided in the seat width direction with an opening of the pocket divided in the seat width direction; the first reinforcement portion is attached at one side and a seat width direction other side of the divider section of the bag-shaped section and the second reinforcement portion being provided continuously without a break from the seat width direction one side to the seat width direction other side of the divider section of the bag-shaped section. However, JP ‘356 teaches a cloth pocket for the rear of a seat back having the opening/bag portion sewn at the top to be split into one or more different pocket entry areas (fig. 1: y), as is considered old and well known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to sew one or more pocket areas in order to provide the desired size pockets with the strip 9 sewn to the divider along with the pocket and the rod extending through the upper portion of the pocket.
As concerns claim 2, Abe, as modified, teaches wherein the seat width direction intermediate portion of the bag shaped section is joined to the trim main body by sewing (JP’365, fig. 1: y).
As concerns claim 3, Abe, as modified, teaches wherein the second reinforcement portion is provided at the interior of the bag-shaped section along an end at an open side of the opening of the pocket (as shown in Abe, fig. 4).
As concerns claim 4, Abe, as modified, teaches wherein each of the first reinforcement portions and the second reinforcement portion is configured by a separate body (Abe, fig. 5: 9 and 10 are separate bodies).
As concerns claim 5, Abe, as modified, teaches wherein the second reinforcement is formed in a rod shape (Abe, fig. 5: 9) and the second reinforcement portion is threaded through a gap between an inner face of the bag-shaped section and seam section (when combined with the seam divider of JP’365, it would have been obvious to extend the rod through the seam).
As concerns claim 6, Abe, as modified, teaches a vehicle seat, comprising: a seatback including a seatback main body that supports a back of a seated occupant (Abe, fig. 1: 3); and the seat trim of claim 1 attached to the seatback main body.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7231. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Dunn can be reached at 5712726670. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights